Wednesday, September 28, 2016


Here is another favorable judgement in favour of pre 2002 pensioners from Kolkatta High Court under APO 315/2015 dated 26.09.2016.It may be recalled, that while delivering the verdict in Writ Petition NO. 507 of 2012 filed by United Bank of India Retirees' Welfare Association and Others against United Bank of India and Others,on extending 100% DA to pre Nov 2002 pensioners,before Hon : HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA on 4 th March 2015 learned Single Judge I P Mukerji, made it clear that :"In my opinion, the classification made in this case just as in the case of DS Nakara, is arbitrary and highly irrational. There is no intelligible difference between the pre 1st November, 2002 and post 1st November, 2002 retirees'. The artificial classification is discriminatory of one class of retired employees" and directed as follows: 
 " The Board of the respondent bank in consultation with the Central government and the Reserve Bank of India to take a reasoned decision, in the light of the above observations and findings regarding payment of 100% dearness relief to the pre November-2002 retirees' of the respondent bank by 30th June, 2015."
However management of United Bank of India preferred Against this verdict before Division Bench of KHC.The good news is the same Appeal is dismissed by HC and decided in favour of Retired Employees Assosciation and directed :
"We find that the distinction, between the pre-November, 2002 retirees and post-November, 2002 retirees, is unreasonable, arbitraryand discriminatory. There is no justification for the same. Thougheach bank which is a member of the Indian Banks Association has aseparate identity, the mandate of the Pension Regulations which have astatutory force of law, cannot be altered by a joint note.
Therefore, we direct the Bank to comply with Regulation 6 of the Pension Regulations and to pay pension to the pre-2002 retirees at the same rate as enjoyed by the post-2002 retirees, as has been paid to the retired employees of the Reserve Bank of India. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is modified to that extent. "

Monday, September 26, 2016

Health Insurance – For protection of Health but of WHOM????

Letter received from Shri R K Pathak , our google group member , on the above subject is reproduced below.

Health Insurance – For protection of Health but of WHOM????

As per the 10th bipartite settlement signed on 25/05/2015, IBA introduced Group Health Insurance Scheme for Employees in Service as well as for retirees with cover of 3 lacs for award staff and 4 lacs for Officers.
The Insurance premium charged for cover of 3 & 4 lacs for retirees was of Rs.4930 and 6573 excluding service tax and policy became in operation from 1/11/2015 to 31/10/2016.
The almost 11 month’s period is lapsed and still IBA is yet to decide the issue of “Domiciliary Treatment” which was agreed in settlement and now policy is due for renewal.
The Group Health Insurance Policy of in service Employees is due for renewal on 1/10/2016 and UIIC was expected to renew the policy without increasing the premium. But now UIIC has intimated the IBA vide their communication dated 15/09/2016 that revised premium from 01/10/2016 will be as under:-
Amount Insured
Previous Premium
Revised premium
Increase in Amount
Increase in %
Award Staff
Rs.3.00 lacs
Rs.4930+ Tax
10452 + Tax
Rs.4.00 Lacs
Rs.6573 + Tax
Rs.13935 + Tax

The UIIC has increased the premium by 112% which is not in accordance with the policy document and condition stipulated at clause 5.18 which reads as under:-
Subject otherwise to terms and conditions of Group Mediclaim Policy as attached. The Insurance Company agrees for a continuity cover for three years based on the following annual renewal matrix. Claims Ratio
Claims Ratio
Discount/ Loading Percentage to be applied on the base premium
Not Exceeding 25% 40% discount
Not Exceeding 30% 35% discount
Not Exceeding 40% 25% discount
Not Exceeding 50% 15% discount
Not Exceeding 60% 5% discount
61% - 110% No discount no Loading
111% - 115% 5% loading
116% - 120% 7% loading
121% - 125% 10% loading
126% - 130% 13% loading
131% - 135% 15% loading
136% - 140% 18% loading
IBA immediately responded UIIC over revised premium referring the agreed clause 5.18 in the policy, vide their communication dated 17/09/2016 but UIIC did not concede to the request of the IBA as claim ratio has reached 180 to 190% for which loading matrix was not provided in the Policy and became firm on 112% increase in the premium.
As the policy is due for renewal on 1/10/2016 for in-service employees and as IBA has advised to Bank of revised premium on 22/09/2016 [copy attached] and as the insurance premium has to be paid in advance, Member Banks will have to accept this unreasonable rise in the premium and will be making payments to UIIC contrary to the terms of Policy.
Neither Bank Management NOR UFBU leaders will raise any voice on the dictating terms of UIIC & IBA as in service employees premium is borne by Bank and Board of the Bank is not accountable to GOI for accepting this unreasonable term by debit to Banks profit, which is already shrinking.
The real problem is ahead as the policy for retirees is due for renewal on 1/11/2016 and premium has to be paid by retirees, POOR retirees will have to accept this unreasonable premium which is not only exorbitant but equal to / double of their monthly pension / family pension and acts of UIIC / IBA and Bank raises doubt that whether the policy is implemented to protect the life of Retirees or to destroy them with a view to remove them from members of Pension fund????.
Attention is invited of ALL CONCERNED to terms and condition of policy document which is as under:-
“The Company may revise any of the terms, conditions and exceptions of this insurance including the premium payable on renewal in accordance with the guidelines/rules framed by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) and after obtaining prior approval from the Authority. We shall notify you of such changes at least three months before the revision are to take effect. The Company may also withdraw the insurance as offered hereunder after following the due process as laid down by the IRDA and after obtaining prior approval of the Authority and we shall offer to cover you under such revised/new terms, conditions, exceptions and premium for which we shall have obtained from the Authority.”
1)      Does the act of UIIC / IBA to give 10 days’ notice for enhancing premium falls within agreed clause 8 as referred above?????
2)      Does the 112% increase in premium for renewal falls within agreed clause 5.18 as referred above?????
3)      Does the act of UIIC is in accordance with IRDAI (Health Insurance) Regulations 2013 and IRDAI Protection Policyholders’ Interest) Regulations 2002 / 2014 as amended from time to time as agreed at clause 6 of the policy document?????


The answer is reflected in the last para of the UIIC communication dated 22/09/2016,[copy attached] that prompted IBA to act promptly and the said para reads as under:-
“We also propose that if the loss ratio is kept under control and profit generated, if any, shall be shared equally".

Thanks & Regards

Pathak R K 


Note :- Author being resignee is not covered in the Health Insurance Policy by the Bank, Despite Policy Documents issued by UIIC covers the Resignee and 16 banks have extended the cover to this category. The views expressed are based on the contents agreed in the Policy and documents attached herein.
Click on the following links 


Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Appeal to Chief Justice of India made in July 2015 has been registered by Supreme Court as Petition

Letter received from Shri R K Pathak , our google group member , on the above subject is reproduced below.
Dear Pensioners,
Please recall your attention to my earlier communication to group dated 25/07/2015, wherein I have forwarded the copy of Appeal made to Chief Justice of SCI by Shri. S Ramchandran, former GM of BOB regarding updation of Pension100% DA neutralization , with prayer as under:-   

It is in view of the facts referred at points 1-10 above and average litigation span of ten years & short of life at our disposal, specifically of Mr. S G Lele (87 years), Mr. C M Bhat (86 years) and other signatories of 80+years, we earnestly pray for your intervention and this Petition may kindly be treated as a Suo-Moto Writ Petition on the appellate side of the Honorable Supreme Court  
Therefore for the points 1 to 10 above, we pray  your lordship may be pleased to call for
1. the records and minutes of wage revision discussions in which our issues were discussed and  finally taken the stand as mentioned in Record Note of Discussion dated 25.05.2015.
2. to investigate into the cost of updation of pension, improvement in family pension and 100% DA neutralization by Actuarials defined in Pension Regulations 1995.
3. Upon investigation report from actuarials, to order to the concerned banks RBI and GOI, to arrive at the decision on the demands of the retirees. 
For the kind response and acts of your Lordship, we all, shall always remain obliged, as duty bound. ".[ Copy attached for ready reference]

I am glad to inform that Honorable SC has registered the said appeal as "Grievance" / Petition today on 19/09/2016 with DIARY No. 39861 of 2016 " .

It is worthwhile to mention that I was actively associated with this task and Mr. S. Ramchandran, former GM of BOB  at the age of 76 was moving to have the signatures of Senior Citizens on the Appeal.


At least NOW , the biggest retiree organisation and AIBPARC will coordinate on this issue to take this matter forward.

With Regards

Pathak R K 



Monday, September 12, 2016

Group Insurance Scheme for Retirees

We reproduce below the circular issued by AIBRF on the above subject.
 Ref: 2016/542                                      Date: 09.09.2016
The Office Bearers/ Central Committee Members/ State Body
Dear Comrades
Re: Meeting with IBA Officials on 08.09.2016
Re: Group Medical Insurance Scheme for Retirees
We called on IBA Officials at IBA office in Mumbai on 08.09.2016 and brought the following issues pertaining to the Group Medical Insurance Scheme for retirees for their consideration and solution
(a) United India Insurance Company has given one more option to the existing retirees to join the scheme by paying full year premium. Many  banks have   acted   on   the   communication of insurance company, but some are waiting
for IBA communication. IBA was requested to immediately
issue suitable communication to banks so all eligible can take benefit of it.
(b) Insurance policy is due for renewal on 31-10-2016. We
requested IBA to finalise the renewal premium with the minimum increase at the earliest so retirees can create sufficient balance in their accounts for renewal. No fresh authority should be insisted by banks for payment of renewal premium. It may be stated that overall claim ratio for all banks put together in the first year has already crossed 230 percent. In view of this some increase in premium for renewal is inevitable.
(c) Top up concept should be introduced for additional cover to those who wish to avail it and are ready to pay additional
premium on the lines of SBI Scheme. We understand that
UIICL is not averse to this idea.
(d) Issue of reimbursement of domiciliary expenses to retirees under the insurance cover should be settled without further delay. We understand IBA is in regular touch with the
insurance company for finding some acceptable solution. It was brought to our notice without implementation of clause of domiciliary expenses, claim ratio has crossed limit of 230 percent. Therefore while settling the issue of domiciliary expenses, long term viability of the scheme with affordable premium cannot be overlooked.
(e) Issuance of ID Cards to retirees need to streamlined in view of problems being faced presently.
(f) Administrative setup at the bank level and TPA level for
smooth implementation of the scheme need to be strengthened.
IBA officials assured us to take up the above issues with the
insurance company in the forthcoming meeting for their early
With Greetings,
Yours Sincerely,
( S.C.JAIN )